Inside Philippine politics & beyond

GUILTY!

Share:
LinkedIn0
Pinterest0

History has just been made in the Republic of the Philippines.

PHOTO by Jhett Baroma @Facebook

 

By Mar Lee @Facebook

Senate impeachment court Presiding Office Juan Ponce Enrile

Senate impeachment court presiding officer Juan Ponce Enrile has just cast his vote of “GUILTY” at 5:55 p.m. of May 29, 2012.

Twenty (20) senator-judges have voted to convict the highest magistrate of the land – Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona.  

My source got it right – that 20 senators would convict. See –

My observations on the impeachment trial pre-climax

Now the hard work begins.

And I am expecting Filipinos the world over, including those in the country, to help out.

Corona’s bitter legacy to all Filipino public servants from hereon: “Learn from me.” 

Raissa

P.S. Alan says –

“Chief Justice, you’re hereby demoted to Renato.”

***

Alan also suggested –

What if somebody nominates Senator-Judge Miriam  to become the Honorable Chief Justice of the Scream Court?

***

I just got a text from a cab driver named Geoffrey Olmoges soon after the conviction came through. He said:  

Hay salamt! convicted na din. 

Grbe mam tlagang huminto ako sa pagpapasada dhl,nakatotok ako mula umpisa

I texted him back: 

Mamasada ka na. :)

Geoffrey texted back: 

Dbaling short sa boundary at least guilty.

[Geoffrey was the cab driver I interviewed after the horrific car accident of ex-senator Rene Saguisag and his wife Dulce who was killed then. ] 

***

Senator Bong Revilla is consistent in his political switching. In 2001, he left the Erap camp and publicly called for his ninong to step down from the presidency. Today he voted to convict Corona, knowing that would deprive his party chief,  Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, of her only legal shield.

Perhaps he deserves the pinwheel award –

 

Comments

  1. Remember Corona’s bank waiver? He revoked it

    BY AYEE MACARAIG
    Posted on 08/30/2012 10:19 AM  | Updated 08/30/2012 1:55 PM

    MANILA, Philippines – It was one of the most dramatic moments of the impeachment trial. Then Chief Justice Renato Corona signed a waiver on his bank documents, allowing government agencies to look into his bank accounts.

    It turns out Corona soon revoked the waiver after he was removed from office on May 29, Bureau of Internal Revenue Commissioner Kim Henares told a press conference on Thursday, August 30, announcing tax evasion charges against Corona, his daughter and son in law.

    http://www.rappler.com/nation/11443-henares-corona-revoked-waiver

  2. Coronas charged with tax evasion

    By Tetch Torres
    INQUIRER.net
    10:53 am | Thursday, August 30th, 2012

    MANILA, Philippines–The Bureau of Internal Revenue on Thursday filed a tax evasion case worth P150.68 million at the Department of Justice against former Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.

    Aside from Corona, also included in the complaint are his daughter, Ma. Carla Beatriz C. Castillo, and son-in- law, Constantino T. Castillo III.

    Corona, a registered taxpayer of Revenue District Office No. 32 that covers Sampaloc, Sta Mesa and San Miguel, served as former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s Chief of Staff, presidential spokesman and acting executive secretary before she appointed him as Associate Justice in the Supreme Court and as Chief Justice.
    As a public official from 2002 to 2010, Corona was required to submit under oath his statement of assets, liabilities and networth annually including that of his spouse and children under 18 years of age.
    In his SALNs, Corona’s net worth ranged between P7 million to P22 million in the nine-year period.

    But BIR Commissioner Kim Henares said Corona did not declare all his assets in his SALN.

    “Aside from the bank deposits, he also did not declare two real properties he acquired during his stint in government: a condominium unit at the Columns, along Ayala Avenue that he bought for P3.6 million in 2004 and a property in Fort Bonifacio that he bought for P9.16 million in 2005,” Henares added.

    After examining Corona’s bank records and compared it with his networth, Henares said they discovered a substantial disparity between the acquisition cost of the properties declared in his SALNs and the cost declared in the certificates authorizing registrations.

    Using the “expenditure method,” the BIR found that Corona’s deficiency income tax liability amounted to P120.5 million for the nine-year period.

    The method used was based on the theory that if a taxpayer’s expenditure in a given year exceeded his reported income, the excess spending would represent unreported income.

    Corona’s daughter, meanwhile, was charged for violating section 254 of the National Internal Revenue Code or attempting to evade or defeat taxes in 2010 and violating section 255 or failing to file an income tax return for the same year.
    Castillo is also facing the same violation for attempting to evade taxes in 2003 and 2009 and violating section 255 of the NIRC or failing to file an income tax return in 2003.
    Based on the complaint, Castillo registered with the BIR in 1998 but filed his income tax returns only from 2005 to 2009.
    Castillo declared a total income of only P1.933 million for the five-year period. His wife, on the other hand, only filed income tax returns for only 2008 and 2009 where she declared a total income of only P228,040.

    While the Castillo couple’s declared income amounted to less than P3 million, they were able to acquire three properties: a P10.5-million property in Project 3, Quezon City, a P15-million commercial property in Kalayaan Avenue, Quezon City and an P18-million mansion in La Vista, Quezon City.

    The BIR said Castillo’s tax liability was P20.25 million while the deficiency income tax liability of Corona’s daughter amounted to P9.93 million.

    Originally posted at 09:41 am | Thursday, August 30, 2012

    • ADDENDUM

      Remember Corona’s bank waiver? He revoked it

      BY AYEE MACARAIG
      Posted on 08/30/2012 10:19 AM
      Updated 08/30/2012 1:55 PM

      …

      It turns out Corona soon revoked the waiver after he was removed from office on May 29, Bureau of Internal Revenue Commissioner Kim Henares told a press conference on Thursday, August 30, announcing tax evasion charges against Corona, his daughter and son in law.

      Henares said the BIR discovered this after it asked the Banco De Oro for bank records of Corona “approximately one or two months ago.”

      “Their legal wrote us and said the lawyer of Chief Justice Corona said that CJ Corona is revoking the waiver. So we were questioning that because the waiver was executed by the Chief Justice and therefore the only one who can revoke it is the Chief Justice. That is our argument with Banco De Oro. However, Banco De Oro brought us to court, asking the court whether they can legally give us the certification,” said Henares.

      Henares added, “Based on my last information, it seems the Chief Justice was asked to comment and he confirmed that he is revoking the waiver he executed.”

      The BIR chief said the issue with Banco De Oro is now a subject of a case at a Regional Trial Court in Makati.
      …

      READ THE WHOLE ARTICLE AT www rappler com/nation/11443-henares-corona-revoked-waiver

    • Tupas, Quimbo laud BIR for tax case vs Coronas

      By Karen Boncocan
      INQUIRER.net
      3:32 pm | Thursday, August 30th, 2012

      MANILA, Philippines — Lawmakers on Thursday backed the P150.68 million worth tax evasion case lodged by the Bureau of Internal Revenue against ousted Chief Justice Renato Corona, his daughter Ma. Carla Beatriz Castillo and son-in-law Constantino Castillo III.

      Iloilo Representative Niel Tupas Jr., who served as lead prosecutor during the impeachment trial against Corona, believes that it was only right that the government go after the former chief justice.

      “Cases against the former CJ should be pursued by the agencies of the government if there are prima facie cases against him based on their investigation and the evidence submitted by the prosecution during the impeachment trial.”

      Such cases “show the government’s commitment in pursuing the public accountability provisions of the Constitution,” he added.

      Marikina Representative Romero “Miro” Quimbo, a spokesman of the House prosecution team, shared Tupas’ views, noting the case was part of the political process.

      Citizens’ Battle Against Corruption Representative Sherwin Tugna, who was a member of the House prosecution team, said that he believes that the justice department “should rule according to the facts and evidence presented.”
      Like Tupas, Tugna felt that “sufficient pieces of evidence were shown during the impeachment trial that former CJ Corona earned income that he did not declare in the BIR.”

      ——–

      Palace: No settlement with Corona on tax evasion case

      By Willard Cheng, ABS-CBN News
      Posted at 08/30/2012 2:20 PM
      Updated as of 08/30/2012 5:07 PM

      MANILA, Philippines – Malacañang is closing the possibility of entering into a settlement with former Chief Justice Renato Corona over the tax evasion case filed against him.

      The Palace said there is enough evidence against Corona to warrant the filing of charges.

      “Naging isyu na po noon iyan e, kung kailangan ba mag-amnesty. Ang posisyon po ng gobyerno is let’s file the tax evasion case to set examples talaga because this is the only administration that has consistently filed tax evasion cases against personalities, individuals who under-declare their income. So this is an ongoing policy po ng ating administrasyon,” presidential spokesperson Edwin Lacierda said.

      “This is our commitment to plugging the leakages in the tax administration system. This is not something extraordinary. It just so happens that the personality involved is the former Chief Justice. Like we said, every other week, the BIR files a tax evasion case against personalities.”

  3. @CPMers

    The cat (or cats) is (are) out of the bag! The JBC has shortlisted eight nominees for the Chief Justice.

    “PNoy to choose from 8 nominees as next Chief Justice; De Lima not on shortlist”
    http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/269501/news/nation/pnoy-to-choose-from-8-nominees-as-next-chief-justice-de-lima-not-on-shortlist

    Out of the 20 chief justice aspirants, the JBC voted to include acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justices Roberto Abad, Arturo Brion, Teresita De Castro, and Lourdes Sereno on the shortlist.

    Also included were Solicitor-General Francis Jardeleza, Ateneo De Manila University Law Dean Cesar Villanueva, and former Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora.

    Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, who is facing a disbarment case before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and is widely seen as the palace choice for the post, was not included on the shortlist.

    • @CPMers

      “PNoy to choose from 8 nominees as next Chief Justice; De Lima not on shortlist”
      Rappler Updated 08/13/2012 2:22 PM

      Out of the 20 chief justice aspirants, the JBC voted to include acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justices Roberto Abad, Arturo Brion, Teresita De Castro, and Lourdes Sereno on the shortlist.

      Also included were Solicitor-General Francis Jardeleza, Ateneo De Manila University Law Dean Cesar Villanueva, and former Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora.

  4. Hi Raissa,

    I love reading the Supreme Court decisions even before the impeachment trial of ex-CJ Corona. This morning while scouring the SC’s decisions in April, I came upon this:

    G.R. No. 189434 & G.R. No. 189505. April 25, 2012

    Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. Vs. Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Presidential Commission on Good Government/Imelda Romualdez-Marcos Vs. Republic of the Philippines

    [the link:]
    http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/april2012/189434.htm
    This is a very informative piece and, well, it may partly or fully explain the younger Marcos’s vote to acquit the ex-CJ.

    All I can say is: hmmmmmmmm!

    • To excerpt or highlight that April 2012 decision certified by CORONA on APRIL 25, 2012:

      Promulgated:        
      April 25, 2012

      Thus, in determining whether the presumption of ill-gotten wealth should be applied, the relevant period is incumbency, or the period in which the public officer served in that position. The amount of the public officer’s salary and lawful income is compared against any property or amount acquired for that same period XXX (The Philippine government) was able to establish the prima facie presumption that the assets and properties acquired by the Marcoses “were manifestly and patently disproportionate to their aggregate salaries as public officials.”[
      XXX
      This means petitioners are unable to account for or explain more than two-thirds of the total net worth of the Marcos spouses from 1965 to 1984.
      Thus, for the final time, we soundly reiterate that the Republic was able to establish the prima facie presumption that the assets and properties acquired by the Marcoses were manifestly and patently disproportionate to their aggregate salaries as public officials. XXX Petitioners herein thus failed to overturn this presumption when they merely presented vague denials and pleaded “lack of sufficient knowledge” in their Answer.
      XXX
      With the myriad of properties and interconnected accounts used to hide these assets that are in danger of dissipation, it would be highly unreasonable to require the government to ascertain their exact locations and recover them simultaneously
      XXX
      the lawful income of the Marcoses is only USD 304,372.43 XXX The entirety of the lawful income of the Marcoses represents only 9% of the entire assets of Arelma, which petitioners remain unable to explain.
      In their Answer to the Petition for Forfeiture, petitioners employ the same tactic, consisting of general denials based on a purported lack of knowledge regarding the whereabouts of the Arelma assets.
      XXX
      In the case at bar, petitioners give the same stock answer to the effect that the Marcoses did not engage in any illegal activities, and that all their properties were lawfully acquired. They fail to state with particularity the ultimate facts surrounding the alleged lawfulness of the mode of acquiring the funds in Arelma (which totaled USD 3,369,975.00 back in 1983), considering that the entirety of their lawful income amounted only to USD 304,372.43, or only 9% of the entire Arelma fund.
      XXX
      Petitioners cannot escape the fact that there is manifest disparity between the amount of the Arelma funds and the lawful income of the Marcoses as shown in the ITRs filed by spouses Marcos.

      C E R T I F I C A T I O N
       
                Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
       
      RENATO C. CORONA
                                                             Chief Justice

    • Based on that recent SC decision certified by Corona, shouldn’t Corona explain the great disparity between his assets and lawful income? Based on the disparity and Coron’a failure to explain his wealth, shouldn’t they be presummed ill-gotton?

      What I am afraid of is that criminal cases will be dragged on and on into oblivion beyond the next President’s term

    • @arbee #397, Kindly elaborate why in your opinion this court decision party or fully explain the younger Marcos’s vote to acquit the ex-CJ. My simple take on his vote is that the coconut does fall away from the tree, that is why I like to know what you and other CPMers think.

      • The way I understand arbee #397, it is not the decision. If Cj is acquitted, petitioner Bong bong’s believe or hope that it would strengthen their own argument(in an appeal) using CJ’s impeachment argument or defense as basis.

  5. abs-cbnnews.com/video/nation/06/08/12/reconciliation-basas-no-gimmick-corona-wife-says

    Natawa ako dun sa comment ni Roy. Yung punishment daw wag isagad.

    Anak ng… so kung nagnakaw ka, sa ok na yung mapagalitan?

    Roy should be disbarred for his attics and wisdom of the law. Scriptwriter sya, di sya abogado. People like him are the reason why the profession is assumed evil and criminal and dishonest at the start.

    Clear yung constitution. Article 6, Section 3.7:

    “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law.”

  6. Just flabbergasted by this article:

    Bongbong Marcos: Won’t Bow, Be Bullied, or Be Bought!

    Much to President Noynoy Aquino and company’s chagrin, the unintended winner of the impeachment trial was not him but his nemesis Senator Bongbong Marcos. Bongbong was one of only three out of 23 senator judges who voted for acquittal in the Chief Justice Corona Impeachment Trial. In a culture where people like to bandwagon with the incumbents, to the detriment of the existence of any real opposition party, Bongbong Marcos earned the respect of many for not bowing to, being bullied, or being bought by the intense pressure of pork and perks reportedly applied by the President on the Senator Judges. Noynoy’s increasing megalomania may have given Bongbong the viability as a credible contender in the coming presidential elections that he otherwise may not have had.
    There were many Senator Judges who are being looked at as presidential timbers: namely, Jinggoy Estrada, Chiz Escudero, Gringo Honasan, Bong Revilla and many others. Had those voted to acquit, then Bongbong would have been just one of many and not stood out. Moreover, the other two Senator Judges who acquitted Corona, Joker Arroyo and Miriam Santiago, are in the twilight years of their careers. Had they been in their prime, then they would have been contenders along with Bongbong. As fate would have it, Bongbong Marcos looked every bit the independent, principled, strong and competent leader people had been hankering for.
    Overnight he became the hero of the rule of law and checks and balances which is the battle cry of pro-Corona forces. He also became a figure of refuge for the many victims of the President’s political witch hunts and galvanized the fractured opposition party into a frenzy of excitement with the possibility of unity under this man. Undetected by a heavily biased media, Bongbong’s leap in popularity is indicative of the true sentiment of Filipinos about the verdict. It is commonly reported by local media that “the people” wanted to convict an unpopular Corona. Of course this is reported by media and survey firms owned by relatives and cronies of the President and party in power. The shoe is most definitely on the other foot as the son of the “hero,” is now reviled as a dictator, and the son of a “reviled dictator” now hailed as a hero.

    This entry was posted on June 4, 2012 at 4:36 am and is filed under Opinion, San Francisco, View from the Ivory Tower. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

    • May we know the personalities behing this “View from the Ivory Tower” ?

      Any Marcos loyalists in San Francisco? Perhaps Boying Pimentel can shed light on this.

      • Did a quick research on this, and I dont think it’s something to be too concerned about at the moment. My view is it’s a fringe lunatic group, in the same category as the gang at Get Real Phils.

        A group of self-loathers and self-bashers whose only commonality is sarcasm, cynicism and hatred. Perhaps trying to gain fame by espousing a radical view. No clear direction though, on where the group intends to go.

        It’s a good idea, though to keep tabs on them. Might need decisive action in the future.

        • Like I said…

          An impeachable offense depends on the composition of Congress (the like-minded members of each House) AND the exigencies of the time.

          It is alleged by the members of the HOR by way of initiating the impeachment process. An impeachable offense always exists in the Lower House.

          Final determination of it is done by the members of the Senate via the impeachment trial. An impeachable offense ceases to exist in the Upper House when its members vote an acquittal.

          —–

          ‘Yan ang nangyari kamakailan…

          20 ang nagsabing guilty si Corona sa Article 2.

          It does not matter if it was Culpable violation of the Constitution AND/OR Betrayal of public trust. What is clear is that impeachable offense booted Corona out of office.

          —–

          Sa hindi makapaniwalang hindi impeachable offense ang nagpatanggal kay Corona sa puwesto, suportahan niyo na lang sina Adaza at Paguia sa kanilang hiling sa Korte Suprema…

          Wala daw kasing jurisdiction ang Senado na dinggin ang impeachment complaint laban Kay Corona.

          Baka mapa-TRO n’yo pa ang pagkakaalis kay Corona bilang Punong Mahistrado.

          Dali kayo bago pa makapagligpit nang husto si Renato ng kaniyang mga gamit sa dating mesa niya.

        • basta ako, hindi ko na kailangan pang malinawan kung ano ang impeachable offense at ano ang hindi. sa lengguahe pa lang ni Corona sa tingin ko ni hindi siya dapat nakapasa sa bar. sabagay, noong panahon nila, basta kabisado mo ang batas at mga definition of legal terms, pasado ka na. unlike today, law students really do have to go through a lot of studies kasi hindi simpleng memory work ang law. aside from his language, yung ginawa nyang drama does not fit well with the office of the CJ. dapat nagpakita siya ng talino, sa salita at sa gawa, sa halip, nagpahuli pa siya sa mga statements niya. hindi ganyan ang dapat na maging CJ.

        • @ Rochie,

          Kahit nga yong pagbenta nila nang BGEI property ay maliwanag pa sa sikat nang araw na dinaya at ginamitan nang kapangyarihan at kahit si mayor atienza ay nagpapatotoo dito, ano ngayon masasabi nang mga kakampi ni thief justice nato corona.

          Maliwanag na binalasubas ni nato maging ang pamilya nito sa BGEI shares.

        • If we apply the quantum of proof required in a criminal law I am certain that TJ would have gotten away with it. although that should still raises issues on the impeachment or removal from office or from a position is indeed too harse a remedy for misdeclaration, or is it too harse only for Corona.

          Delsa who failed to declare her market stall was not allowed to self-correct her declaration. Neither did ex-Mayor Ong of Cebu and his 2 cousins when they mis-declared for 4 years that they do not have relatives in the government. But Corona also did not declare that his wife holds a position at Camp John Hay for 7 years?

          Shouldn’t the SC en-banc review these cases especially if Corona is to get his SC benefits?

        • adequate direct and circumstantial evidences were elicited, proof beyond reasonable doubt was established. but then, who has not an unprejudiced mind?

          Corona does not need his “benefits”, he has more than enough stashed in the banks to last him ten lifetimes. Asking the SC to award him his benefits is strategic. If he is awarded his work benefits, he will say later on that the SC believes he was wrongfully convicted such that they had to give him what he deserves. Knowing his penchant for lip service and propaganda and (un)creative rhetoric, he will do just that.

        • I agree that for me, there is a layman’s proof beyond reasonable doubt. However, the legal system works in mysterious ways and their proof beyond reasonable doubt lies in hard evidences which usually means written and authenticated evidences. In reality, truth often gave way to legal technicalities. Some of these as raised by the defense will be upheld by a regular court of law.

          For example, the testimony of CMC and the unsigned AMLC documents may have been declared inadmissible in a regular court. Corona would then not be prompted to testify and incriminate himself.

          That is just an opinion based on my personal observations of cases dismissed due to technicalities.

          In my personal case, which involved a retired police (a reporter of a broadsheet tried to influence or muscle his way around), our case was dismissed because our lawyer filed for a case for malicious mischief and not destruction of property. So after 2 long years (where cases before the fiscal usually takes only 6 months) the fiscal simply ruled that it is unlikely that there was no “malicious mischief”.

          We instructed the policemen to be careful, before and after he dropped a certain part of the item, but instead of exerting due care he proceeded to pull off a certain part damaging the item. This is the basis of our lawyer’s malicious mischief.

          The technicality here is that an item was still damaged. So in that respect we lost although sa fiscal pa lang ito.

        • Some correction: I think the fiscal’s decision said (1) it was unlikely that there is malicious mischief, (2) we failed to prove or establish malicious mischief, or (3) both

        • Yes. Might need to prepare another set of anonymous documents against them too.

    • Paid for propaganda spadework. Unfortunately (or fortunately for the Philippines) the intended beneficiary of the propaganda is turning out to be a mediocre, lazy and politically tone deaf brat. I really do think all the political acumen passed to Imee not to her good for nothing brother

    • Sino ba itong tinamaan-ng-lintik na nagsulat nitong “hogwash” na ito? Dinaig mo pa si Joseph Goebbels ah! Magkano ba ang binayad sa iyo, ha?

    • “Bongbong Marcos earned the respect of many for not bowing to, being bullied, or being bought by the intense pressure of pork and perks reportedly applied by the President on the Senator Judges.”

      I hope that this is true. In a country where politicians unashamedly switch parties before elections, and form alliances with pre-election opponents for political conveniences rather than ideology, politicians fight only for what they think is to their best political and financial interest.

      There is no certainty in politics and it is always clouded by personal agenda. An opposition today does not necessarily mean someone fighting for his principles. Being an opposition can get you votes too and is a good way to get some public sympathy and support.

      For example, Corona: I do not regret making a stand
      http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/06/03/12/corona-i-do-not-regret-making-stand

      As if he really stood and fought for something other than his own interest.

      No wonder some Filipinos do not know who to vote anymore and just vote for familiar names and faces. Tutal parepareho lang naman sila so yung idol na lang nila ang magpapakayaman.

    • may isang kwento na galing sa isa sa kanyang PR team.

      Minsan na “daw” pinasara ni bongbong ang isang airport sa Ilocos sa pamamagitan ng paglalagay ng blockage sa runway nito. ginawa “daw” ito ni bong bong dahil parating ang isang foreign businessman na kaaway nya.

      di ko lang alam kung totoo ito o hindi. Kung meron pang mga kwento na kagaya nito e dugtungan na lang ninyo. sa bandang huli malalaman ninyo kung totoo nga ito o hindi.

      gaya na lang ng isang kwento kung papano nila gamitin ang mga foundations para sa kapakanan daw ng mga bilanggo. sa pamamagitan ng foundations na ito nairerelease ang malalaking assets nila marcos. di ko rin lang alam kung totoo man ito o hindi pakicheck na lang ninyo ang mga paper trails dun sa muntinlupa.

    • @concerned citizen,
      whoever wrote such a crap is dreaming.
      what an insinuation!…no to another marcos!
      what the father did to our country is irreparable.
      bongbong “Won’t Bow, Be Bullied, or Be Bought”, my ass.
      he’s just as moronic as brenda and jokah…all in the twilight.
      ibig diyang sabihin, mas tama pa ang boto ng 3 vis-a-vis sa 20?? wtf…
      “indicative of the true sentiment of Filipinos”…maybe yes, for the people who are unaware of what his father did to our nation?
      oh gosh! no wonder RP will become RIP…
      this thought if really shared by many a people is alarming…
      WE must do something, CPMers, this is one of a challenge…

      • i suggest to ignore that article. it is not a broadsheet article and not from a famous blog as Raissa’s.

        • Corona goes on to say:

          “This, in fact, is just the beginning… The verdict is for me to step down from office. It is not for me to give up the fight for the Rule of Law, Judicial Independence, and transparency in government service… My path may have veered away significantly from where it once was, but the destination is still the same, even clearer now than it was before,”

          Puro rhetorics talaga at ayaw pa tumigil. So continuous pa ang judgement ng mamamayan.

          Ano kaya Rule of Law ang sinasabi niya? Delsa’s Law or Renato’s Law?

          Transparency like hiding assets under a self serving (mis)interpretation of “absolute confidentiality”

          Ano kaya ang “destination is still the same”? $ accounts, com-mingled funds